Voice to Text Task
The speech-to-text tool that I’ve selected for this task is Speechnotes, and the translated text is below:
“For this activity I’ve decided to talk about upcoming lesson plan that I will be assigning to my grade 8 students who are currently reading The Outsiders so this is our current novel study and when I introduce the topic to them we talked a lot about stereotypes and the way that certain groups or people in our society are stereotyped and we basically did an activity where I wrote on the board different terms like rich or poor and then I had students write the stereotypes that were associated with those particular words and I didn’t tell them whether they needed to be positive or negative stereotypes I just said stereotypes and for each class I noticed that almost everything they listed was negative there may have been one group or two across all three classes that wrote something positive as a stereotype but for the most part all students wrote something negative and I brought that to their attention and a lot of them seemed really surprised by that because they hadn’t realized the connotation that’s attached to the word stereotype and they hadn’t realized that right off the bat they immediately thought of negative things rather than something positive and so we continued this activity and they completed a reflection then we started reading the novel and I ended up changing their seating plan as well the next class and I noticed that it was Pitch quiet in the room once I had done that and they were sitting in their new seats because now they were no longer sitting with their friends and they were unfamiliar with the people around them and in their environment and I thought about the kids who often don’t say a word in class who sit alone who don’t have any friends and who are very kind kids but they may be have a hard time opening up to other people and so I thought since we were reading The Outsiders and talking about stereotypes and talking about how we might judge people before getting to know them I thought it would be a good idea after we’ve read a couple chapters for students to have an assignment where they write a biography on another student that I pair them up with so basically I’m going to assign a list of Partners and then I’m going to say to the kids okay you have to write a page about the person that I’ve assigned you with and I plan on assigning them with someone that they maybe have never even talked to so there I’m not going to give them any example questions I’m not going to give them what they should be asking because I don’t want the dialogue to be forced or shaped by me so I’m telling them that they need to come up with at least a page to write about that person so they need to come up with the questions themselves they need to figure out what they want to know about the person maybe the person will share that they really like skiing and then they’ll find some kind of connection between them ask more about skiing learn about their family learn more about their life and I’m hoping that this leads to more organic conversation and helps them form bonds with one another that they wouldn’t otherwise form and kind of helps them break out of this idea that they can only hang out with people within their groups and that they perceive to be like them I want them to try and find connections with people that they may be think they have no connections with and would otherwise Overlook or not even bother to learn their name and I’m hoping that by doing so they’re then able to maintain those connections and Branch out and make more friends and I’m hoping that it brings some kids out of their shell and then it helps break down some stereotypes for all of them and that they can develop a better understanding of each other the novel their school community and ultimately of the world that they’re living in”
How does the text deviate from conventions of written English?
This text deviates from conventions of written English because it reads exactly like someone thinking out loud. Instead of being broken into sentences or paragraphs, everything runs together as one long stretch of writing. There is almost no punctuation to signal when one idea ends and another begins, which makes the text hard to follow when read rather than heard. Additionally, in telling the story, I’ve relied heavily on informal connectors such as “so” and “and” to keep the story moving, which works naturally in conversation but leads to run-on sentences and reduced clarity in writing. There are also small, but noticeable issues, such as inconsistent capitalization, including words, such as “partners” and “overlooked,” that appear capitalized mid-sentence without punctuation to justify it.
What is “wrong” in the text? What is “right”?
What is considered wrong in the text relates to conventional rules of English grammar and sentence structure. The text lacks consistent punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing, which can interrupt meaning and make it harder to read smoothly. Without these conventions of writing, some ideas blur together, and clarity is lost as the reader has to work harder to separate one thought from the next. However, what is right about the text is that it remains generally understandable. The ideas move logically from one point to another, allowing the reader to follow the sequence of events even when the structure is compromised. While the lack of punctuation and transitions can disrupt comprehension, the text version of the story communicates its main ideas and reflects the natural flow of spoken language.
What are the most common “mistakes” in the text, and why do you consider them “mistakes”?
The most common mistake in the text is the use of run-on sentences, because they make it difficult to clearly separate ideas and follow the flow of the story. Without proper punctuation or sentence breaks, the reader has to work harder to understand where one thought ends and another begins, which can create confusion. In written English, sentences are expected to be structured in a way that organizes information and signals relationships between ideas. While run-on sentences are common in speech and can reflect natural thinking, in writing, they reduce clarity and make the text feel disorganized, even if the overall meaning is still understandable.
What if you had “scripted” the story? What difference might that have made?
If I had scripted the story beforehand, I would have been able to express my thoughts more clearly, avoid run-on sentences and repetition, and make my ideas more concise. As a result, the story would have been easier for the reader to follow and more engaging, enhancing clarity while reducing the spontaneity of the narration. There are sections where my ideas become jumbled, such as: “I pair them up with so basically I’m going to assign a list of Partners and then I’m going to say to the kids okay you have to write a page about the person that I’ve assigned you with and I plan on assigning them with someone that they maybe have never even talked to so there I’m not going to give them any example questions.” In this part, I struggle to explain my point clearly and almost stumble over my words, shown by the interruption in “I pair them up with so basically I’m going to assign….” This creates confusion, reflects improper writing, and reveals an interruption in my thought process, which could have been avoided or smoothed out if the story had been scripted in advance.
In what ways does oral storytelling differ from written storytelling?
Oral storytelling differs from written storytelling in that it’s immediate, malleable, and created in the moment, while writing is more deliberate and carefully constructed. As Gnanadesikan notes, “writing is generally done more deliberately than speaking, so finished written pieces are much more carefully crafted than a typical spoken sentence” (2011, p. 5). Oral storytelling allows the speaker to think out loud, adjust ideas, and rely on memory, which can result in repetition and less structured language. Written storytelling, by contrast, relies on material tools that allow ideas to be revised, preserved, and organized over time. Haas reinforces this distinction by describing writing as “a set of materially embodied symbolic tools that humans use for the goal-directed accomplishment of work” (2013, p. 6), demonstrating how writing enables reflection and precision in ways that oral storytelling does not.
References:
Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2011). The first IT revolution. In The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet (pp. 1–12). John Wiley & Sons.
Haas, C. (2013). The technology question. In Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy (pp. 3–23). Routledge.